Theory of Knowledge - Course Companion for Students Marija Uzunova Dang Arvin Singh Uzunov Dang

IV. Ethics
in TOK is about the exploration
Much
different perspectives. Do we have a
of
to seek out, understand and
responsibility
different perspectives? If so, to what
protect
the discussion in II.2 we saw that having
In
partially overlapping, and sometimes
multiple,
perspectives coexisting in the same
contradictory
presents advantages as well as challenges.
space
a personal and civic ethic that cultivates
Having
advantages and manages the challenges is
these
pluralism, and is a foundation for modern
called
democracies around the world. Pluralism
liberal
threatened when the appetite, or capacity, for
is
these challenges is diminished, for
managing
when efforts at consensus-building
example
respectful dialogue between opposing
and
are seen as unimportant or not
perspectives
it. worth
what extent would you agree with the
To
that, collectively, we benefit from having
view
perspectives and multiple knowledges
multiple
the world? How important are other
about
such as autonomy and freedom, which
factors,
these perspectives agency? What is lost
afford
of us interacts with knowledge at a
Each
level every day when we share our
fundamental
with others, evaluate what others share
opinions
us and comprehend our lived experience.
with
may not think of these as ethical issues or
We
acts, but the questions of validity and
political
our claims, and of ourselves as
legitimacy—of
our experiences.
claims-makers—define
TOK we explore the ideas of legitimacy
In
validity as ethical issues of knowledge
and
intersect with power to have significant
that
in the world. Below, we look at
consequences
this intersection with power can produce
how
distinct forms of epistemic injustice or
two
which Miranda Fricker describes
violence,
the “wrong done to someone specifically
as
first is when the credibility of a claimsmaker
The
is prejudicially deflated because of their
the second is when there is a gap in the
identity;
understanding to make sense of and
collective
first form of epistemic injustice occurs when
The
deflate the credibility of a claims-maker, for
we
when their identity is met with prejudice.
example
is a fine balance to be struck in evaluating
There
claim based on the claim itself, and the claimmaker.
a
To what extent is it possible to separate
two? We rarely evaluate a claim in a vacuum
the
paying attention to who is making it.
without
Chapter 3 we encounter the challenges of
In
produced by anonymous people on
knowledge
internet; in Chapter 9 we hear from E.H. Carr,
the
advises us to “study the historian before you
who
[their] facts”. Which identities are relevant
study
we evaluate claims, and which are not?
when
should be sensitive to the differences
We
one-off, idiosyncratic prejudices—“Bob
between
untrustworthy because he regularly talks
is
systematic and persistent
nonsense”—and
based on identity—“Bob is
prejudices
because of his religion/age/
untrustworthy
orientation/class” or some
ethnicity/sexual
identity.
other
(2007) has described this as the difference
Fricker
a “prejudicial credibility deficit” and an
between
credibility deficit”. Fricker’s
“identity-prejudicial
is that great harm is done at a societal
argument
when we deny someone’s legitimacy, based
level
their identity, to make a claim, to be a knower
on
their own right. This epistemic injustice
in
for example, when “a hearer wrongs a
occurs,
in his capacity as a giver of knowledge”,
speaker
them “from the very practice… of
excluding
May 2020, the IB set TOK candidates the
In
question: “Does it matter that your
following
circumstances influence how seriously
personal
knowledge is taken?”
your
1
IV.3 Epistemic diversity and
epistemic justice
communicate a particular experience.
IV.3.1 Credibility
lengths should we be doing this?
when a perspective is lost?
what it is to know” (Fricker 2007).
in their capacity as a knower” (Fricker 2007).
20